Rahima my darling sister, Is re-establishing government in Somalia good for out plighted nation? Is the current government a legitimate government? When we agree upon the answers of the above questions can we only debate the FT issue. Sophist my dear brother how are you? I’m sure you know that we both agree that re-establishing a government in Somalia is good for our people and regardless of whether they are our preferred choice of government, this government is nonetheless a legitimate government. Having said that, there are certain principles, which as I said just cannot be compromised, i.e. gaalo FT. What I don’t understand and still cannot seem to believe is why is this government so insistent on bringing these gaalo troops, why not just replace them with Muslims (I’m sure it isn’t very difficult)? At least then, many will come on board. Somalia and Somalis have changed. Brother I just went to Somalia, here in the west I am considered to be a reasonably dressed Muslimah, I went to Somalia and I must admit sadly that I was out of place (in terms of dress). Every little girl is adorning the jilbaab and many women the niqaab. This is just a small example of how much Somalia has changed and how different the people back home are from those of us here in the West. To say that they have taken on traditional Islam in droves would be an understatement . About a year ago, my eedo moved from JigJigga to Mogadishu. I had the pleasant opportunity of meeting her for the first time in my life. As we sat outside one night, having a family discussion (teaching me about the paternal family and dancing the zaylici for me ), I happened to ask her why she was in Mogadishu. She basically had no family in Mogadishu (my fathers family are all in Boorama or Jig Jigga) and all her daughters and sons we’re married and living in Jigjigga. To my surprise her answer was simple, she could no longer bear the Ethiopian tyranny. Living in the house with us was my habaryar who had come from Dire Dawa to see us; her stories of the Ethiopian government were basically the same, oppression and not having the right to practice Islam as you see fit (try growing your beard in peace ). I am personalizing the issue for then we understand why this issue touches the hearts of many in such a personal way-but I’m sure many of us were already aware of all of this. To make matters even worse, Mogadishu has many “refugees†from Somali Galbeed who have fled the oppression. They come to the capital for although nearer, Somaliland is a no-go zone for them (some expressed that they would be handed back to the Ethiopians because of their tribe) and other areas will not be able to handle the sheer number of them. It is for this reason that many in Mogadishu are against this proposed move, not because they are FT, but because they are kuffar. Honestly at times I doubt the intelligence of these men in government, this is just about the most dim-witted move possible. Instead of getting the Somalis on board they are alienating them on an issue which is very sensitive to the hearts of many. Personally, I believe that they need to re-think this move and as Baashi said exclude the Ethiopian (and all other kuffar for that matter), for this is a demand which is more than reasonable. Mogadishu has become the political and economic power center of just one clan. Lets just say we agree on this-which part of Somalia hasn’t?- probably just Kismaayo. Fact#1:Whatever Mogadishu was before the civil war; today it’s radically a different city. Since the civil war, Mogadishu has become the political and economic power center of just one clan. The rest of the Somali clans were expelled and forced to leave their properties and their city. When the dust settled and tribal sentiment subsided, no substantial reconciliation steps have been taken by the ‘expellers’ and thus, the city remains under the illegitimate control of that clan’s powerful warlords. That is the true status of Mogadishu. This is factual how so? And you would know because you have been there recently right? Honestly, it is those outside of Mogadishu and those of us in the west that propagate the so-called power of these warlords. Most of these warlords have almost next to no influence over the majority of the people of Mogadishu- I just wish that people would stop over-exaggerating their power. If anything, it is the courts, which hold far more power, to the point that the courts attack the checkpoints of these warlords and the warlords do not utter a word. Although i disagree with the courts on their stance against the government, if i were CY or Geedi i would be working towards reconciling with them for they along with the other religious folks (who mind you are also the business community), hold the power balance of Mogadishu in their hands. But I must agree with one point, I fail to understand why there is all this interest in Mogadishu. If it means that the government will go-back on the FTs issue, then it would be best that they be re-located elsewhere. Anything to avoid bloodshed (which is what will happen if this goes ahead) is fine by me. Mogadishu should be allowed to be as it is- I believe that the good people there will deal appropriately with their garbage over the coming years. With so many people (the city is extremely overcrowded, it will take time-long enough for this government to get on their feet). Then the government should offer good-will gestures, beginning with the re-building of the streets and previous government buildings- sadly every business man has built his empire whilst neglected the collective landmarks of the city.

We Watched... I fear You. How will we answer to You on Qiyamah? When our Sisters and mothers were raped we watched When our Brothers were sodomised, we watched, When our Elders were mutilated we watched, When the Mujahideen were tortured, we watched, When Children were beheaded we watched, When Depleted uranium burned their insides, we watched When Pregnant bellies were slashed open we watched, When Babies were thrown to their deaths we watched, When His mother lay there bleeding and motionless, we watched. When Children became insomniac because of atrocities their eyes witnessed, we watched When Grenades explode in schoolyards we watched. When He witnessed the gang rape of his mother, we watched. When Children became mutes because of the incomprehension of atrocities, we watched. When the Infant was trampled on infront of his screaming mother, we watched. When Children stopped smiling in we watched. When Boys were forced to take up arms to defend their women folk, we watched. When her Brother was used as a human shield, we watched. When Muslim land was occupied and terrorised, we watched. When She was raped at the age of four we watched. When Her husband was beheaded and torched, we watched. When we saw Mujahids sacrificing their lives for Akhirah, we watched. When we were called to Jihaad we watched. Yaa Allah, we watched and ignored. We shed tears whilst they shed blood for you yaa Allah! Will you forgive us? Will the beloved Prophet of Islaam even glance at us yaa Allah? When the Ummah was humiliated we watched and sat here complacently. Yet we call ourselves Muslims. And yet here we stand, and again we watch. From one who claims to be your slave.

Fatwa on HSBC Scheme Haytham bin Jawwad al-Haddad Article ID: 1196 | 1291 Reads The ruling on the permissibility of financing properties using Islamic ijara mortgages as currently implemented by HSBC and other banks Many people have enquired about the permissibility under Sharee’ah of the so-called Islamic ijara mortgages recently announced by banks such as HSBC. As it is in the interest of all Muslims to have a current and accurate understanding of the issues involved here, I have concluded the following judgement based upon the Quran and Sunnah in accordance with the understanding of the main school of thoughts. Let me first brief the reader regarding the manner in which the scheme works. Under the ijara (rental) variety of Islamic mortgage, the bank purchases a property selected by the client, following a promise from the client that he or she will live in that property and purchase it after an agreed period of time. In return, the client pays monthly installments to the bank, mainly composed of two payments. One portion of the installment is considered to be a payment of the purchase price for the property, and another portion is counted as rent that the client pays for living in the property in the meantime. The purchase price paid by the client is equal to the purchase price initially paid by the bank for the property. Once the client has paid all of the installments, in other words the purchase installments plus the rental installments, the bank will transfer the ownership of the property to the client. The bank makes its profit from the difference between the price it pays for the property (including related transaction costs) and the amounts received in installments from its client. This type of scheme, with some minor modifications, is used in the United Kingdom by HSBC Amanah Finance, Ahli United Bank and United National Bank(1). In principle, an ijara scheme can be structured in such a way as to be acceptable under Sharee’ah so long as certain conditions are met, the discussion of which is beyond the scope of this judgement. However, the implementation of the scheme by the above banks is highly problematic. Firstly, the contract is ambiguous in terms of its nature. Is it a lease contract, a purchase contract or a combination of the two? Some scholars have prohibited combined contracts (for example, a transaction that combines both lease and purchase), as the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) prohibited two transactions in one transaction. This is the opinion adopted by most of the scholars, and although there are some who have allowed this type of transaction under certain strict conditions, there is a consensus that the presence of a significant amount of ambiguity invalidates a contract. Among the many Prophetic traditions on this point is that of Ibn Umar, who related that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) forbade sales that involve uncertainty or ambiguity (gharar)(2). Many scholars, including the foremost Fiqh councils of our times(3), believe that if rental and sale are mixed in such a way that one cannot distinguish at any point of time whether the client is a tenant or a buyer, then such a contract is invalid according to Islamic jurisprudence. When pressed to clarify the nature of the ijara mortgage, staff in Islamic banking departments frequently describe it as a ‘lease ending in a purchase’. Yet if this really is the case, then the ijara mortgage should display the features of a lease throughout the entire time-span of the contract (often as much as 25 years) until it concludes with a purchase event. In other words, the bank will rent the house for a period of time with the promise that it will sell to the client at the end of the tenancy. During the tenancy, the bank will be the legal owner of the property. After the tenancy the client will be the legal owner. Although many scholars do not allow this type of combined contract, let us for the sake of argument consider it to be valid according to the opinion of those scholars who accept it. When we examine the available ijara schemes more closely, we find that the theoretical structure outlined above does not exist in practice. The ijara contract as it stands is neither a lease nor a purchase. Rather, it is closer to a conventional loan where the bank lends money to a client for a property purchase, and requires that the client must repay with a markup (under the guise of ‘rent’). Consider the following questions which illustrate the ambiguity of the contract: 1- Why does the tenant need to pay a large down payment? (Frequently an amount equal to 10% of the price is required. A genuine tenant does of course make some kind of down payment, relevant to the period of the tenancy, but no credible tenancy agreement can bind the tenant to place such a large down payment.) 2- Who pays the insurance of the house? Is it the bank or the tenant? (Technically, the owner of an asset is the one who should pay for its insurance.) 3- What will happen if there is loss or damage to the property and the insurance company refuses to cover the losses incurred? Who will pay for this? (Once again, if the bank is the actual owner, and such a loss or damage occurred through no fault of the client, then the bank cannot hold the client responsible for damages.) 4- If the tenant decides to stop the tenancy agreement, the bank will sell the property. If the price of the property has depreciated in the meantime (which means the bank as the owner of the property suffers a loss), why is the client bound to compensate that entire loss while being only a tenant? The point of all these questions is to address the central issue, namely, who is considered the actual owner (and thus liable for any damages or depreciation in value) for the duration of the lease? Is it the bank (in which case all of the above scenarios do not make sense), or is it the client (in which case this contract is not a lease contract in the first place, but rather something else)? A bank may give an answer to all or some of these questions, supported by quotations from jurists past or present. Some of these answers may indeed prove to be acceptable when looked at in isolation but, when taken as a whole, such practices may invalidate the contract. To illustrate our point, the bank might state that, according to a particular school of thought, the down-payment is not a part of the price of the property since it is not a purchase agreement. Rather, it is an assurance that the tenant is serious in renting the property for a given period of time (up to 25 years, perhaps). Such a condition is acceptable according to some jurists. Furthermore, the bank may state that the insurance is paid by the tenant based on a mutual agreement, and there is nothing wrong with such a condition, for the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said “Muslims are bound to the conditions taken on by themselvesâ€. In the meantime, they might claim that they are bound by English law to hold the title of the property, and will only pass it to the client upon the final payment. However, the contractual agreements that are signed between the bank and its client put all of the risks of ownership upon the client, and these factors defeat the purpose of ijara, even if technically speaking the bank claims to follow the letter of the English law as the ‘owner’ of the property. In the above we see arguments that are each, on their own, widely considered to be valid. However this should not lead us into the grave error of assuming that three valid matters when combined produce a valid outcome. Take, for example, the plain riba transaction, but in the following framework: 1) An interest-free loan, (which is something recommended) 2) A gift, (which is again, something recommended) 3) A promise. Taken individually, these three transactions are completely valid. However, if they are combined in a single contract, the result is pure riba. For example, I say, ‘Grant me a loan which I will repay you (a valid matter), and I promise you (a second valid matter) a gift (a third valid matter) in addition to the repayment when it becomes due’. Is this contact valid or is it riba? The answer is that it is manifest riba without any doubt, since the one who gave the money was promised that same amount back along with some profit. So, we need to look at the end-to-end process here and evaluate it as one transaction. And we need to answer the critical question: who is the real owner of the property during the whole process? Is it the client while the bank is just financing the deal as it does in a normal conventional mortgage? Or is it the bank? If the owner is the bank, then does a real owner free himself from any responsibility towards his property? Why does the bank avoid owning the property? Here, we need to explain an enormously incorrect methodology in deriving Islamic verdicts. A verdict should be derived by looking at a matter in its totality, in light of the aims behind it. When we break the matter of discussion into sub-issues and treat issues separately, without looking at the overall picture, then we are contradicting the right methodology in deriving verdicts. The reason is very simple: verdicts based upon sub-issues might not necessarily be the same as verdicts based upon a consideration of the general situation. A very good example is the previous one. Each sub-contract taken individually is completely valid, but taken as a whole the entire contract becomes null since it is a clear riba transaction. Based on this, many if not all jurists forbade contracts which try to employ such deception. As another example to further illustrate our point, let us look at the transaction known as ‘iynah. This transaction is strictly prohibited by the Prophet (SAW), and its prevalence is a sign that the Muslim ummah will decline. The Prophet (SAW) said “When you trade with one another with ‘iynah, and hold on to the tails of oxen, and are content with farming, and give up jihad, Allah will cause humiliation to prevail over you, and He will not withdraw it from you until you return to (your commitment) to Islam.â€(4) This transaction, when broken down into individual parts and examined solely upon these parts, appears to be valid. However, when taken as a whole, it is clearly a type of riba. How exactly does ‘iynah occur? One of the means of practising ‘iynah is that one party sells a product to a second party on a deferred payment. The second party then sells it back to the seller at a lesser price, but in cash. If you break this transaction into sub transactions you can conclude that there are two acceptable sale transactions. It is allowed for a person to sell a product for a deferred payment, and it is also allowed to buy a product for cash. However, the ultimate aim of this transaction is to enact a pure riba transaction. This is because the second party receives an amount of cash from the first party and is then required to pay back an amount of greater value at a later time. As for the product itself, since it changes hands twice, it returns to the initial ‘seller’. Therefore, the product is used merely as a loop-hole to avoid the prohibition on riba. This clearly illustrates that we cannot ignore the total aims of any transaction. Jurists mention this rule as a principle (qa’idah) that is employed for all business transactions. This principle states, ‘The consideration of a transaction is to be paid to its intention rather than its format’ or, alternatively, ‘Transactions are judged according to intention’. Of the evidences for this principle is the hadeeth of the Prophet “Actions are judged according to intentionsâ€. It is true that some people might say that scholars disagree with this concept, but those scholars who disagree with this concept (like Imam Shafi'i), agree with all other scholars that the aim of the transaction should not be to overcome a prohibited transaction. In other words, all scholars are in agreement that it is sinful for two parties to try to devise a scheme that appears to make permissible something that the Sharee’ah declares impermissible. I therefore conclude that there is no significant difference between the ijara scheme outlined above and the conventional mortgage which is a pure riba-based loan. Under the ijara scheme, the bank performs what is essentially a money lending transaction, placing such conditions upon its clients that guarantee, for all practical purposes, that it will obtain the same amount of money in return plus a profit disguised as ‘rent’. It might be true that many of the individual clauses and conditions of the contract are permissible (or, at best, subject to a difference of opinion among scholars), but when put together and examined as a whole, it is apparent that there is little that separates this contract from a simple mortgage. Of the many matters that clearly illustrate this is that the risks and rewards of ownership of the house are carried by the tenant, not the bank, regardless of who is the ‘paper-owner’ under English law. Allow me to provide a real Islamic scenario for acquiring a house, and also mention a philosophical and ideological approach in explaining a very important principle in Islamic finance. If two or more parties enter a business transaction, then of course their ultimate aim is profit. Islam, being the religion of ultimate justice, does not confer advantage to any party based on one’s worldly and materialistic power. In other words, in a permissible Islamic transaction, a powerful, richer person will not have any guaranteed advantage over a powerless, poor person. Both parties have to share the same risk of loss, just as they want to share the joy of profit. This is a very logical and simple – yet powerful – principle, which is an explanation of the Islamic rule: ‘ There shall be no profit without (a risk) of loss.’ This principle is based on many Prophetic traditions, such as: “It is not permissible to sell something on condition that the purchaser lends you something. And it is not permissible to have two conditions in one transaction. And no profit is permissible unless possession has been taken of the goods. And you cannot sell what is not in your possession.â€(5) In another hadeeth, the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) forbade selling any item from the same place where it was bought; a buyer must first physically acquire these items (lit. ‘…add them to his own luggage’), then he may sell these goods.(6) The point of this rule is that whenever an investment contract is structured such that one party is guaranteed a profit, something is simply not right. Only in a pure riba transaction will there be guaranteed profit. Any permissible transaction in the Sharee’ah must have an element of risk involved, no matter how small that element is. Therefore, when looking at this particular transaction, it is essential that the bank (the stronger party) not take advantage of the client (the weaker party) by exploiting the financial power of the former and the desperate need of the latter. If these banks enact their transactions with this principle as an underlying morale framework, I think such contracts that we now see will disappear. Yet, the reality is far from this ideal. In light of this principle, we should always ask the following question: Do these banks share with their clients the risk of loss, or are they are stipulating all possible conditions to protect themselves against any foreseeable loss? Additionally, do these so-called Islamic banks own the properties they are renting to people? If we give sincere answers to the questions in discussion, we will see that the current ijara schemes are almost identical to conventional mortgages. They appear to be a ruse designed to promote conventional interest-based practices using Islamic terminologies and Sharee’ah expressions. Based on this, the ijara scheme as it is implemented here in the UK by major banks: Ahli United Bank (formerly called the United Bank of Kuwait), United National Bank and HSBC is totally prohibited. In fact, it is a deception rooted in riba. Until the Muslims in charge of these schemes prove that the above argument is invalid and give clear answers to the questions highlighted earlier, I believe that such transactions are totally prohibited, and I warn brothers and sisters not to get involved with them. I would also like to emphasize that the view of some Muslims, that this scheme is better than the conventional riba-based mortgage alternative and should therefore be used until a pure halal scheme is available, is incorrect. This is because there is no significant difference between the two schemes. And Allah knows best. Written By Haitham al-Haddad Haitham01234@yahoo.co.uk 1 Thulqadah 1425 – Dec 12th 2004

The Other Kind Of Terrorism Tarek El Diwany Article ID: 1205 | 215 Reads One kind of terrorism has been making the news recently. Its weapon is debt, and it is a most efficient killer. "Relieved of their annual debt repayments, the severely indebted countries could use the funds for investments that in Africa alone would save the lives of about 21 million children by 2000 and provide 90 million girls and women with access to basic education" UNDP Human Development Report 1997, p. 93 The poor nations of the world are told that if they borrow and invest wisely, they will be able to repay their debts and more. But they've been hearing this for fifty years, and the debt just keeps on growing. 1980 1990 2000 Developing country debt ($bn) 525.4 1259.8 2140.6 Actual payments of interest plus principal ($bn) 73.4 140.6 337.8 IMF World Economic Outlook 2001 Western economists tell the developing world that growth will generate sufficient wealth for all their people. But ours is a very unequal world, so when the growth comes few people see its benefits. "225 people own more wealth than the poorest 2.5 billion people" UNDP Human Development Report 1998 The development institutions trumpet their aid to the world, to show that something is being done. But what is given with one hand, is taken back many times over with the other. According to the World Bank, in 1999 Angola received $261m in aid but paid $1144m in debt service, Cameroon received $190m in aid but paid $549m in debt service, Kenya received $195m in aid but paid $716m in debt service, and Vietnam received 257m in aid but paid 1410m in debt service (Global Development Finance, 2001). When charity pop concerts for Africa are held in London or New York, the tens of millions raised are typically enough to pay the continent's interest bill for a few hours. In 1999, the developing countries excluding the Eastern block were more than $2,030 billion in debt to the developed world (Global Development Finance, 2001). In 2000, the IMF put the figure for total developing country debt at $2,140 billion (World Economic Outlook, 2000). Some $700 million per day now flows in debt repayment from the developing world to the developed world (UNDP Human Development Report, 1997). If we examine some basic indicators of wellbeing, we can begin to see the physical consequences of the debt. In 1995 the industrialised countries experienced child mortality (the number of deaths at less than 5 years of age per 1000 live births) at a rate of 16. In south Asia the figure was 109, and in sub-Saharan Africa it was 169 (UNDP Human Development Report 1998). This should not surprise us. In Tanzania, debt repayment was six times spending on healthcare, whilst in Uganda annual spending was £2 per person on healthcare and £11.50 per person on debt repayment (Jubilee 2000). According to the United Kingdom's Department for International Development in 2000, 1.2 billion people live in "abject poverty", meaning that they have no basic medical care, nutrition or housing. In the sub-Sahara, 48% of people go without health services, 48% of people are without safe water and 42% are illiterate, whilst in south-Asia the corresponding figures are 22%, 18% and 49.5%. Measured in 1987 US Dollars, GDP per capita in sub Sahara was $520 and in South Asia $521, whilst in the Industrialised Countries it was $12,764 (1995 figures compiled in UNDP Human Development Report, 1998). Things don't seem to be getting better either. Real wages in most African countries have fallen by more than 50% since 1980 (Jubilee 2000). According to The Centre for Economic Policy Research in 2001, more than three-quarters of the world's countries had a growth rate at least 5% lower in the 1980-2000 period than in the 1960-1980 period. China is one major exception, but not because it took advice from the World Bank and IMF. (Far from it in fact. China has been one of the few countries to completely reject IMF and World Bank advice, opting instead for protectionism, an inconvertible currency and a state controlled banking system.) In 1996 the UN said that the poorest third of the world's people are getting poorer. Even the World Bank has admitted that, between 1987 and 1998, the number of people in absolute poverty (meaning that they survive on less than $1 per day) increased from 1200 million to 1500 million. Among the various actors in this sad tale, the World Bank and the IMF stand tall. Established under the Bretton Woods arrangements in 1944, the World Bank was to provide development assistance for non-commercial projects, and the IMF was to assist nations in short term balance of payments difficulties and act to ensure currency stability. Often mentioned in the same breath, but entirely separate, the World Trade Organisation (WTO) was established in 1995 as the successor to GATT (the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) in order to implement free trade and global standardisation among the world's nations. When it comes to defining country types, there is some variation in the methodology of the supranational institutions. Generally speaking, each recognises developing, transitional and developed countries. The OECD's Development Assistance Committee separates developing and transitional countries according to GNP per capita. Here, "developing" includes "least developed" and "low income" countries which had a GNP per capita below $760 in 1998. In 2002, UNCTAD listed 49 "least developed" countries. The WTO meanwhile allows members to self-select themselves as "developed" or "developing" but, where trade privileges are available to developing countries, one country may challenge another's self-selection. Some two thirds of Third World debt is owed to commercial lenders, and one-third to multilateral lenders (these are lenders, such as the World Bank, who have the right to exercise discretionary dispersal of contributions from members). It is important to keep in mind that when figures for total external debt are given, they normally comprise the public and the private foreign currency debt owed by a country. Debt owed in a country's own currency does not usually present a debt burden for that country because the domestic government can manufacture its own money to repay its debt (one exception is where a currency board or strict peg has been adopted). On the other hand, developing countries cannot manufacture US Dollars or other Western currencies and so debts owed by developing countries to the developed world can indeed become a desperate financial burden. Apart from the definitional nuances, there are also some statistical traps to be aware of. It is necessary to distinguish between the 'nominal debt' of a country and the 'present value' of its debt. Since the interest payment on a $10 loan made at 10% is equal to the interest payment on a $100 loan at 1%, loans at subsidised rates of interest that are made to some countries can be stated on a present value basis in order to understate the amount of debt that is owed. For example, in 1999, the nominal versus present-valued debt for Benin was $1.62 billion versus $0.70 billion, and for Burundi $1.06 billion versus $0.54 billion. Another statistical trap is that debt service (quoted as interest plus principal as a percentage of export revenue, or as a percentage of government revenue) may be compiled on the basis of what is actually paid rather than what was contracted to be paid. Debt service figures may therefore appear as if they are not worsening, whereas these figures only remain steady because the country in question is at the limit of what it can pay. After fifty years at the helm of development policy, a variety of excuses have emerged from the international financial establishment in respect of their performance. The "corrupt dictators" argument is one that seems to have stuck well in the public's mind but, like the others, it fails to stand up to close inspection. Is the whole of the developing world corrupt? If it is, did Western lenders really not recognise that fact until thousands of billions of dollars had been lent over many decades? Is the whole of the developing world corrupt, or just its leaders? If so, who schooled its leaders, who promoted them and who supported them? Have the Western powers played no part in this? Serious readers of history don't need me to answer that question of course. The "recycled petrodollars" argument is similarly lacking in merit as an explanation of the Third World debt problem. In fact, the debt problem had commenced long before the oil price rises of the 1970's. Egypt in the 1860's, the Ottomans in the 1870's, and in the 1930's almost all of South America defaulted on their debt to the industrialised countries. In the 1960's, Brazil, Turkey and Argentina were among those rescheduling once again. If the Third World debt problem is not post Oil Crisis, we can hardly hold petrodollar recycling to blame for it. Another modern habit is to define away those problems that cannot be cured, or to invent new measures if the old ones prove too embarrassing. One example is this: "Opening up their economies to the global economy has been essential in enabling many developing countries to develop competitive advantages in the manufacture of certain products. In these countries, defined by the World Bank as the 'new globalizers' (World Bank, Globalization, Growth, and Poverty: Facts, Fears, and an Agenda for Action) the number of people in absolute poverty declined by over 120 million (14 percent) between 1993 and 1998". IMF staff papers, Global Trade Liberalization and the Developing Countries, November 2001 Well done to the propaganda department at the World Bank. It must have taken a long time to think that one up. It reminds me of the way that unemployment was reduced in the UK under the Thatcher government during the 1980's; a sharp monetary expansion combined with over 100 changes to the definition of the word "unemployed". Then there are those factually correct statements that border upon plain distortion because they omit one or more pieces of crucial information. Michael Rowbotham in Goodbye America, 2000 gives the example of Uganda, cited by ex US Treasury secretary Larry Summers as a country that had experienced several years of growth under World Bank policy during the 1990's. The bit that was missed out was the fact that Uganda's per capita income in 2000 was 30% less than in 1983. Technically Summers was correct, there had been "several years of growth", but only after the policies prescribed in Washington had encouraged a catastrophic collapse. More weighty still is the combined criticism of developing country experts from around the world that Rowbotham has assembled. For example: "The total collapse of the monetarist experiment in Chile is a salutary lesson in the failure of IMF prescriptions, even when applied in their most rigorous form and by a government totally committed to their success" Latin America Bureau, The Poverty Brokers, 1983. In Yugoslavia: "In the last ten years, the whole IMF policy has been nothing but a failure. All its prognoses were proved wrong, and its policies and measures had an opposite effect from what had been expected" Singer, H. & Sharma, S. (eds) Economic Development and Third World Debt, 1983. And in Africa: "There is a very broad consensus among African governments that the IMF and World Bank terms are often harsh and unsuitable generated severely adverse effects on the overall economies of these countries especially with regard to agriculture, manufacture and foreign trade" Conference of the Institute for African Alternatives, Onimode, B. [ed.], The IMF, the World Bank Bank and African Debt, Zed Books, 1989. The philosophy that got much of the world into this dreadful mess has a long pedigree. It began with Benthamite self-interest and ended in the belief that profit maximisation was the goal of human activity. This belief has gone so far that the West now seems to be forgetting that not all wealth is measured in terms of money. Happiness, a stress-free life and environmental quality are some examples of wealth that is not given a monetary value and therefore does not appear in our calculations of GDP. Yet we attach such holiness to GDP that all our efforts are focussed upon increasing it. In 1989, Daly and Cobb calculated that there had been a decrease of 40% in the quality of life in the USA since 1970, based upon adverse changes in factors such as the working week, pollution, stress levels and divorce rates. The Centre for Economic Policy Research in the USA says that the median US real wage was the same in 2000 as it was in 1973, so even most Americans have not shared the growth that the USA is said to have experienced. What hope then for the people of the developing world where wealth inequality is that much higher and "growth" that much lower? In modern capitalist societies production is generally guided by what makes profit, not by what satisfies need. Normally this would be fine because everyone with a need would have sufficient money to satisfy it. But in an economic system based upon usury and fractional reserve banking, the commercial banks have created a scarcity of money and it is this scarcity that prevents some of the people and nations from fulfilling their requirements. Ignorant of usury, on occasion denying its existence, the conventional economists have failed to promote this analysis of the problem. Instead we are treated to all manner of hocus pocus theories and remedies. As each remedy fails, the public becomes ever more cynical. What we need is a holistic vision, but what we get is tunnel vision, the language of target ranges and accounting ratios. One day the experts will realise that good statistics are driven by a healthy economy, not the other way round. Like the "war on terrorism", the "free trade and free markets" mantra has acquired a life of its own. Everything seems to be justifiable, even hunger, if free trade or free markets are involved. Like other mantras, the free trade variety is full of irony. In this case the irony arises because Third World producers have often found themselves selling resources to effective monopoly buyers from the West. The irony continues further because, despite the use of the word "free", for many developing countries "free trade" amounts to no more than the exploitation of their unskilled labour by a foreign multinational. Developing countries accept this situation largely because of the debt trap. Any source of foreign currency is better than none when interest charges need to be paid. Often, weak regulation (on pollution and labour rights, for example) is used to attract foreign direct investment. At the end of it all the developing countries are too often left with a cut down rainforest, an inconsequential skill set, and a pile of debt that still needs to be repaid. When advice arrives for the developing countries, it too frequently rides on a World Bank or IMF horse. It is their advisors who dominate government departments in developing countries, often stationed there as part of the conditionality for previous aid packages. Joe Stiglitz, former chief economist at the World Bank, is particularly scathing of the World Bank's approach to providing financial assistance for developing countries. A country investigation, according to him, involves little more than a close investigation of a country's Five Star hotels. After this, a begging finance minister is presented with a pre-drafted restructuring agreement for 'voluntary' signing. The agreement typically comprises the standard one-size fits-all components of: 1) privatisation; 2) capital market liberalisation; 3) market based pricing; and 4) free trade. The corporate agenda and absolutist ideology is unmistakable. In the case of Ecuador the absolutism went so far as a recommendation to take the US Dollar as the country's currency, even though the World Bank itself admitted that this would push 51% of the population below the poverty line. This kind of thing can only be the result of heartless Darwinism invading the space of development economics. The strong will survive, they tell us, as if the weak can be left to die like animals in the jungle. The weakness of academic discourse in the face of the commercial and economic realities is unsurprising given that so much research is funded by the financial establishment itself. The mighty World Bank determines much of the discourse in development economics because it is one of the most financially powerful institutions on the block. Other cultures, and other paradigms, just don't fit the Washington consensus. Some of the worst double standards of Western policy can be seen here, where the academic and the political meet. For example, the Borrow/Invest/Export/Repay development model continues to be promoted even when, as Rowbotham reminds us, not one developing country has gone into debt with the IMF and World Bank and subsequently paid it off. There is the typical IMF response to budget and trade deficits in the developing world, namely that the country in question should engage an austerity programme. Why is the USA, the world's biggest debtor and holder of the biggest trade deficit, not implementing this advice itself? Then we have the Bush administration authorising an extra $48 billion in weapons procurement expenditure, whilst the UN is telling us that $80 billion invested annually will eradicate poverty in the developing countries and thereby benefit one billion people. Isn't the best way to protect America from hateful foreigners to make their lives bearable back home? The host of contradictions continues. Western governments often argue that debt finance is acceptable if projects are self-liquidating. So why don't they advance finance to developing countries on a profit sharing basis instead of charging interest? The IMF and the World Bank insist that the Third World must remove subsidies, for example in agriculture, but the developed world pays hundreds of billions of dollars in subsidies to agriculture, for example by means of the Common Agricultural Policy in Europe. As Stiglitz points out, the Third World is advised to remove barriers to trade and stop protecting domestic industry, but no developed country succeeded in becoming developed like this. (Japan had protection and promoted its Keiretsu model for many decades. The USA had tariffs throughout the nineteenth century. England had a colonial empire to sustain it. Even supposedly successful transitional nations such as South Korea adopted protectionism in the twentieth century.) It has been asked elsewhere why, if international competition really is so good, foreign doctors lawyers and dentists are not allowed to enter the United States in greater numbers? If US medical salaries were at the European level, then the US would save tens of billions of dollars annually in care costs, certainly much more than the few hundred millions of dollars of annual saving estimated to have been made due to trade liberalisation under the WTO in 1995 (General Accounting Office, USA). Well there's a restrictive trade lobby for doctors and lawyers of course, we know that, but when do we ever hear the free traders in the WTO, IMF and World Bank complaining about it? The major supranational institutions urge transparency of procedures in accountancy standards and talk increasingly about accountability and other fine democratic principles, but when it comes to their own behaviour these principles are often nowhere to be seen. For example, IMF board meetings rarely record the voting pattern of directors and don't release minutes. The US controls 17% of the voting rights at the IMF executive, and then we find that major decisions such as an amendment of the IMF's Articles or use of its gold reserves require an 85% majority. The IMF board of directors has one seat each for the USA, Japan, Germany, France, UK, Saudi Arabia, Russia and China, but large groupings of other countries find themselves allotted one or two directors only. Thus the whole of Africa has had only two directors, a wholly inadequate state of affairs given that it is incurring much of the debt burden. Then at the WTO we find that three bureaucrats can meet in secret to determine disputes against governments who interfere with the freedom of trade. Amidst all these contradictions, it is hard to see where the principles meet the practice. The Highly Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) initiative is a good example of the public relations exercise that can be used to dress up ineffectual policy on a grand scale. The HIPC was portrayed in many quarters as an effort on the part of the world's rich countries to reduce the burden of the most heavily indebted poor countries. In fact, its scope was so restricted, so subjected to conditionality, that it was hopelessly ineffectual. HIPC was to apply where economic mismanagement and corruption could be shown to have resulted in the wastage of borrowed money. It therefore excluded all those situations in which World Bank or IMF mismanagement and corruption might have been shown to be the cause of the debt build up and, worse still, allowed these institutions to define the meaning of 'sound management' when their own practices are often far from sound. By the "decision point", the point at which debt relief could be agreed, an HIPC country had to have adopted a Poverty Reduction Structural Plan (PRSP). If the net present value of the HIPC debt was greater than 150% of exports (or greater than 250% of fiscal revenues in the case of internationally "open economies") then international lenders would commit to provide debt relief by the "completion point". At the completion point, the HIPC country had to have implemented the PRSP for at least one year, and have met various financial targets set by the World Bank. Those were the hurdles. So what about the performance? 41 countries fell within the scope of the HIPC initiative, having a total of $205 billion in debt. HIPC therefore excluded some 90% of developing country debt. 23 HIPC countries had reached the decision point by September 2001, and these received $20.7 billion in debt relief. In other words, by September 2001, some 1% of developing country debt had been addressed. Of the 23 countries to have passed the decision point, 4 reached the completion point by the end of 2001. Among these 4 countries, debt service was reduced by up to 50%. Total developing country debt service payments were thereby cut by $1.1bn annually, a reduction of some $3 million per day in the context of total daily debt repayments exceeding $700 million. HIPC is big on fanfare, small on substance and it is not a cure. In fact the financial establishment is incapable of providing a cure for the debt problem, because that would require its own abolition. We cannot ask a financial system that has grown up on usury and fractional reserve banking to give up usury and fractional reserve banking. The continued procession of monetary crises in the developing world should by now have focussed the media spotlight upon these two practices, but the spotlight remains firmly directed at the "corrupt dictators", "inefficient practices", "inflexible labour forces", in fact anything and everything except the current policies of the lenders themselves. (Past policies on the other hand can quite often be the subject of self-criticism by IMF and World Bank executives because such honesty disarms the critics, makes it look as if the mistakes of the past have been recognised and rectified, and helps to show some humility.) The Islamic solutions to the problems that we face are based upon an entirely different philosophy to that of capitalist liberalism. Muslims know that economic growth is not the objective of life. The true objective is to worship Allah and this does not require economic growth, nor necessarily imply it. Of course, if it enables us to improve the quality of life there is nothing wrong in having economic growth, but we are dealing with a question of priorities here, of worshipping growth or God. It is becoming clearer by the day in the West that materialism, like all forms of godless self-interest, cannot support the social structures that are essential to the survival of society. Trust is one such structure, without which society will collapse in the long run, but trust and materialism have never been the best of friends. Once, when the Muslims adhered to the rules of Allah, the world was a very different place. It was characterised by peace and justice, not usury and debt Holocaust. Even for non-Muslims it was a Golden Age, one that thrived for almost 1300 years. Now Islam has been relegated to the back room, and the bankers have assumed the controls. To put debt relief in the hands of such men is like putting a thief in charge of home security. They give us structural adjustment and debt forgiveness, when it is they that should be adjusting, they that should be seeking forgiveness for their usury. But there is hope. The developing nations should not think that they are powerless in the face of their oppressors. Their best weapon now is the very scale of the debt crisis itself. A coordinated and simultaneous large scale default on international debt obligations could quite easily damage the Western monetary system, and the West knows it. There might be a war of course, or the threat of it, accompanied perhaps by lectures on financial morality from Washington, but would it matter when there is so little left to lose? In due course, every oppressed people comes to know that it is better to die with dignity than to live in slavery. Lenders everywhere should remember that lesson well. www.theproblemwithinterest.com (Slighlty Edited)

The Sword Of Allah At Yarmuk A.I. Akram (Lieutenant-General) Article ID: 1206 | 139 Reads "Did you not see us victorious upon the Yarmuk, The way we prevailed in the campaigns of 'Iraq ? The virgin cities we conquered, as well as The Yellow Meadow, on our galloping steeds. We conquered before that Busra, which was Impenetrable even to the flying crows. We killed those who stood against us With flashing swords, and we have their spoils. We killed the Romans until they were reduced Upon the Yarmuk, to emaciated leaves. We smashed their army as they rushed headlong To the Neck-Breaker, with our sharp steel. By morning they tumbled into it, reaching The mysterious matter that defies the senses." [Al-Qa'qa' bin Amr, commander in Khalid's army] 1. At dawn the Muslim corps lined up for prayers under their respective commanders. As soon as the prayers were over, every man rushed to his assigned place. By sunrise both armies stood in battle order, facing each other across the centre of the Plain of Yarmuk, a little less than a mile apart. There was no movement and little noise in the two armies. The soldiers knew that this was a fight to the finish, that one of the two armies would lie shattered on the battlefield before the fight was over. The Muslims gazed in wonder at the splendid formations of the Roman legions with banners flying and crosses raised above the heads of the soldiery. The Romans looked with something less than awe at the Muslim army deployed to their front. Their confidence rested on their great numbers, but during the past two years the performance of the Muslims in Syria had instilled a good deal of respect in the hearts of the Romans. There was a look of caution in Roman eyes. Thus an hour passed during which no one stirred and the soldiers awaited the start of a battle which, according to the chroniclers, "began with sparks of fire and ended with a raging conflagration", and of which "each day was more violent than the day before." 2. Then a Roman general by the name of George emerged from the Roman centre and rode towards the Muslims. Halting a short distance from the Muslim centre, he raised his voice and asked for Khalid. From the Muslim side Khalid rode out, delighted at the thought that the battle would begin with himself fighting a duel. He would set the pace for the rest of the battle. As Khalid drew near, the Roman made no move to draw his sword, but continued to look intently at Khalid. The Muslim advanced until the necks of the horses crossed, and still George did not draw his sword. Then he spoke, in Arabic: "O Khalid, tell me the truth and do not deceive me, for the free do not lie and the noble do not deceive. Is it true that Allah sent a sword from heaven to your Prophet ? … and that he gave it to you ? … and that never have you drawn it but your enemies have been defeated?" "No!" replied Khalid. "Then why are you known as the Sword of Allah?" Here Khalid told George the story of how he received the title of Sword of Allah from the Holy Prophet. George pondered this a while, then with a pensive look in his eyes, asked, "Tell me, to what do you call me?" "To bear witness", Khalid replied, "that there is no Allah but Allah and Muhammad is His Slave and Messenger; and to believe in what he has brought from Allah." "If I do not agree?" "Then the Jizya, and you shall be under our protection." "If I still do not agree?" "Then the sword!" George considered the words of Khalid for a few moments, then asked, "What is the position of one who enters your faith today?" "In our faith there is only one position. All are equal." "Then I accept your faith!" 3 To the astonishment of the two armies, which knew nothing of what had passed between the two generals, Khalid turned his horse and Muslim and Roman rode slowly to the Muslim army. On arrival at the Muslim centre George repeated after Khalid: "There is no Allah but Allah; Muhammad is the Apostle of Allah!" (A few hours later the newly-converted George would fight heroically for the faith which he had just embraced and would die in battle.) On the auspicious note of this conversion began the Battle of Yarmuk.

The Trouble with Islam’s Reformists Amir Butler Article ID: 1203 | 418 Reads In the last three years, an assembly-line of self-styled reformists, both Muslim and non-Muslim, have paraded through the media competing to offer their sagely advice on how to solve the challenges facing Muslims. Although figures such as Tariq Ali, Irshad Manji or Ibn Warraq may differ in the details, these unsolicited sages all argue that the Muslim world must somehow reconcile its beliefs with “modernityâ€; a delicate euphemism for the adoption of the secular nostrums of the West and the forging of a “new Islam†more malleable to the progressive sensitivities of Western elites. However, the problem with such proscriptions is that they naively assume a universal set of values and constructs which can be applied to any cultural or religious setting in order to usher in some vacuous notion of “modernityâ€. It is naive because secularism, the lynch-pin of their “modern polity†evolved in response to a uniquely European problem: the excesses of the Christian church in Medieval Europe and the view that the Church was a bulwark to social, scientific and cultural progress. Whilst the Islamic world may be undergoing its own dark ages now, history shows that its experience under religious rule has been the antithesis of European experience: the periods of theocratic Muslim rule, such as in Cordoba or Baghdad, were also marked as periods of social, technological and scientific advancement and achievement. In fact, many of the foundations of the modern society owe themselves to Islamic contributions such as the invention of algebra, the establishment of the hospital, lighted cities, and the preservation of ancient Greek and Roman texts. It is ironic that the Muslim world contributed significantly to the development of the culture that would in the space of a few short centuries come to colonize it, in part because of the Muslim world’s abandonment of its faith. Like many reformists, Irshad Manji claims that Muslims must “revive Islam’s tradition of independent reasoningâ€. In other words, Muslims must abandon their supposed orthodoxy and adapt their religion to suit the demands of the modern secular state. However, this is not a revival of Islam’s tradition of learning but a perversion of it. The great Islamic civilizations of the past made religion the guiding principle of the society: independent reasoning meant the application of religion to the world around them, not the modification and manipulation of religion to suit the ebbs and flows of the popular culture. In the proposed vacuum of scriptural authority, each Muslim will act according to his whims and desires: a guaranteed recipe for more extremism and more instability. Which is more logical? To import a philosophy that is incongruous to Islam and Muslim culture, or to build on our past successes, adapting it to modern times, but within a well-understood framework of scholarly opinion and reasoning? The social stagnation, political violence and overall instability that characterizes contemporary Islamic societies owe more to ignorance or a misguided interpretation of religion than Islam itself. The question is how do we resolve this problem: throw the baby out with the bathwater, or restore social and political structures that history has shown to be successful. The root cause of their problems is not simply a failure to reconcile Islam with homosexuality or ‘reproductive rights’, nor is it that they are adhering too closely to Islamic teachings. Rather, a dispassionate analysis dictates that Muslims need to practice and understand more of their faith; not march a spiritual death-march to secular humanism and moral relativism. For some Western non-Muslims, the message of Islam’s “reformists†holds attraction on a number of levels: it reinforces the cultural hubris that Western values are the panacea for every ill; it offers a simplistic answer to a very complex problem; and it represents a message delivered by people who are palatable to the secular West, even if they hold little credibility in the Islamic circles they claim to influence. Irshad Manji is a textbook example of such a phenomena: as a lesbian activist she espouses a lifestyle that Muslims, like many Christians and Jews, disagree with, holds no formal qualification in Islam, yet purports to lecture Muslims as to how they can ‘reform’ whilst only ever addressing non-Muslim audiences or forums. There is no doubt that the Islamic world faces challenges, but a unique civilization with a unique history and cultural context requires a unique solution. For Muslims who view the periods of theocratic rule as their “golden yearsâ€, the further abandonment of religion as the guiding principle of state and citizen are not seen as the solution, but the very essence of our problem.

In my case and in my current situation I wish for representation for more females and males too (might find Mr Right ) Deary best be careful before I tell you know who

Me thinks the enemy is from within.. Certainly true, but the main problem is with the general populace. Each tribe will support their leader (referred to as a warlord by other tribes), whilst demonizing the “leaders†of other tribes. We would get somewhere if we all dealt with out rubbish instead of giving our dirt honorable titles.

Though, I despise our continual enemy (note I didn’t say historical rivals; a favourite word to many—perhaps for political correctness reasons), the idea that this government will work without FT's is ruse pretext from those who don't want the rebirth of our nation. This may be the case for a minority, but certainly not all. Many are objecting for the simple reason that the proposed FTs will include kuffar and more disturbingly include troops from, as you so rightly put, our continual enemy. I sincerely believe that overall, the people of Somalia are good people, people who are tired of lawlessness and want the law to prevail. Many are hoping for the success of this government (including those in Mogadishu, contrary to popular propaganda), but will not compromise certain standards such as keeping the gaalo troops out of our land.

but you have to look/feel what some of our fellow Nomads go through daily na'mean Bring in Gaalo foreign troops, especially amxaaro and I guarantee you that our fellow nomads will be loosing a lot more than they are at the moment.This issue will further divide the Somali people and even for those of us who support the government, this is just impossible to swallow. The point at hand, is not just these warlords turned MPs oppose this move or that a warlord turned president supports it, but rather what do the Somali populace think of it. I am more than sure that this is clear and undoubtedly to ignore their opinions is just plain ********* . The government needs the support of the people but so far are only alienating them.

Mashallah, hopefully it will be successful.

^My disagreement is not with bringing in troops, but the fact that they are kuffaar. He could at least have the decency to make ties with the Muslim countries and bring in Muslim troops. On the other hand though, i don't even see why we need foreign troops. Are not all the troublemakers part of the government? The government is basically a culmination of warlords with a dash of a few good men. If they agree with the formation of the government and support it, they should deal with their armies and their should be no problems, no?

I am so proud of the people back home. Having just returned from the horn, Mogadishu and Somaliland in particular, I have to say Mashallah-absolutely impressive, especially the education. This indeed is good news .

Let’s just say I’m so glad I live in Melbourne and not London, I’d probably freeze in that cold. Sure the city is beautiful and all, but I couldn’t get passed the whether. Even with gloves (my cousins had a good laugh, apparently it wasn’t cold enough to be adorning gloves :rolleyes: ), my fingers were numb to the point that they hurt-not used to the cold. Even worse after a few days in London, we went to Norway. I then soon realized that I had just left heaven. I cannot believe that Somalis live in Norway-let’s just say we had many adventures trying to walk on the snow. Ever seen a grown lady crawling because she can’t stand up ? I went to sleep at woodgreen, the rest of time was spent visiting relatives, my ayeeyo in particular. Horta, why is it that all the houses in London look the same? Have they not ever heard of variety? Overall though, it wasn’t too bad. I enjoyed it , mainly because I saw family that I hadn’t seen for a very long time. Anyway we await your visit down under, i'm sure you'll never return to London .

^ Not if they continue with their current ****** move of brining in gaalo foreign troops. Bloodshed once again, here it comes.

W/salaam, hugs and kisses sweety. How have you been ? Should my report include London, Woodgreen in particular, the cold that my fingers almost fell off? Thanks for the article

Rahima – It is refreshing to hear your account of the old the country and your speaking well of it. Am glad to learn your experience has been rather well. But heary, you sound more like the old geezer who once for his life travelled outside his dominion only to come back a few days later to coin a phrase that is quite applicable in your case judging from some of you comments: “mar dhoofâ€. Perhaps some of the chaps on the scene have not seen much of Somalia lately, but dears do not forget there are those of us who frequent Somalia of all. Share, if you will, your personal account and observations of the cities you had the pleasure to visit: what were the high points? Surprises, disappointments and the like? Are there no pictures? And welcome back, Cheers. Much thanks brother. Hopefully you are in the best of health and iman . As for Somalia, I realize it is not all perfect and so much more can be done, but what I detest is the attempt to degrade a certain city because of the set mind that it is controlled by a certain tribe who some have animosity towards . This is the bottom line here. Mogadishu has many positives, and in all honesty it surpassed by expectations. This trip has regained my hope in Somalia and Somalis, no longer will I trust the trash of the Somali media (certain outlets). To be fair, on the other side of the coin, sure there are negatives which I believe will hopefully be solved by a government. The negatives are many also, but certainly do not outweigh the positives as some might have us believe. We need to be fair in our judgments and stop this hate game. As I stood in the streets of the capital after coming back from a long trip of Isbitaal Banaadir (where I saw my birth records) Isbitaal Banaadir SOS Markazka Ibn Baz Jaamacada Banaadir and Imam Shaafici school, I remember thinking happily to myself, if Somalia is like this without a government imagine how it would be with one. At the same time I was extremely saddened that we continue to waste time when if we were to use our resources wisely we could be living like kings. Alas Allah is testing us and we must be patient. Libaax and Rokko, How are you brothers ? Libaax, much apologies, the report and pics are coming . I’ve been pre-occupied with visitors awaiting news on the beloved land, not to mention I am technologically challenged (have no clue on how to get the pics posted :confused: ). Rokko, boy, am I glad I got away , but my sister said it wasn’t too bad, at least we didn’t reach 40.

^It depends on how they tell you.

Gaalo troops ay. Could a president make a more fatal mistake :confused: ? At least if they were Muslims there could be compromise. CY is turning the people against him, he is digging his grave.

^Doing well brother , check the reply Duke, Brother, I really don’t want to get into a quarrel with you about a topic you have no experience about. According to certain people, Somalia as a whole is a no-go zone and they do not enjoy the experience. I have seen natives of Hargeysa (probably the most developed Somali city at the moment), say the exact same thing, i.e. that they could not swallow it. We all have different opinions, but many of us seem to expect Somalia to be like the west. I don’t want to re-iterate myself, but all I can say is, if only you saw, as they say “if you never ever go you’ll never never knowâ€. Allpuntland and such likes are not a very good source, and the media in general thrives of exacerbating mayhem. As for the rosy picture I don’t buy it, the Islamic courts you claim so much love for are the same ones who occupy people’s homes and farms. And who dig out graves.They are clan courts run by militias exclusive to one or two sub clans. Like I said brother, unlike you I am not run by tribe loyalty. If indeed what you say was to be true, then I would be against these courts. Why? Because my sub-sub-clan (which I’m assuming you are related to) do not have a court and oppose the courts (not the wadaado). They are wrong and I will not support them. As for the courts taking people’s lands and farms, please do tell us the proofs. We as Muslims believe in innocent until proven guilty. The one thing I will admit though is, certain workers (mainly guards) of these courts are not ash to say the least and hence the mistakes they make are often placed on the shoulders of the court. This is unfair and like I said, there is a reason why all the wadaado have expressed that we should all support these courts. Some sort of stability (even a little) is better than none. They are trying and we should be giving credit where credit is due. So you see dear you can excuse all you want, Mogadishu was a jewel and could still become a wonderful place, but today it’s a shell a hallow shell where might is right. It was the capital city of a whole country for god sake, a city ravaged by years of war and worse still the capital of a country without a government for so long. It would be naïve of us to think that it would display all the splendors of its former self. To compare Mogadishu to Hargeysa, Bossaaso, Gaalkacyo etc is just ludicrous. One is the capital with so many people (that I’m sure we must agree upon), others much smaller cities with a smaller number of residents. Furthermore, no other city in Somali has experienced the wrath of war like Mogadishu. Mogadishu has the bad and the good, but considering the events that took place in that city, it is doing marvelously. What of the refugee camps littering the city. The old quarters the sound of gunfire and Technicals roaming the streets. What about the wasted generation condemned to a life of poverty and neglect? Are these not problems shared by all Somalis all across Somalia :confused: ? Was it not just recently that an article was written about the “refugees†in Bossaaso? These are a collective Somali problem, which will only be solved through the establishment of a properly functioning government. Lets not highlight collective Somali problems as just those of Mogadishu . Hanah/Rahima, you are blinding yourself from the truth dear, you went back to Xamar with your dollars and you were protected by your well armed clan. However thing about the girls who don’t have the fortune like yourself of belonging to the big guns as well as hiving the big western bucks. Yes I’m a spoiled little rich girl :rolleyes: . My so-called well armed clan is divided in two, just like every other tribe-the good and the bad. I seek refuge in Allah from ever needing the “protection†of the bad. We did not need any protection whatsoever, we roamed the city as we wished and yes even at night. Anyway brother, this is useless, it’s like an artist arguing about science with a scientist. Experience is everything, till you have been we have nothing to discuss . Bring back security and justice and most of our problems will be solved. The courts are trying and all you can do is criticize. One has to take his hats off to the many ordinary men and women that run this city despite the many daily problem they face. So, so true. Walaahi I was so impressed by the many good people. Those running the hospitals, schools, universities etc. Amazing walaahi. They should be saluted, they truly are Somalis, many even leaving the safe life of the west to make a difference back home. For me, they were an inspiration, so much so that inshallah as soon as i am done with my studies i shall also be returning home to take part in the re-building. Welcome back Rahima. Thank-you walaal .

As far as the capital is concerned the cup is half empty, lets talk about puntland and the cup is half full. Honestly Duke, you disappoint me and the transparency continuous. Here you are claiming to be a nationalist and you are full of nothing but double standards. It’s almost like you get joy out of hearing any bad news (be it true or false) about Mogadishu. I wonder why! I suggest you stop the nonsense and cut the cheap propaganda. Some love to over exaggerate every little issue. Sure enough it is not perfect (I don’t believe anywhere in Somalia can claim this), but nonetheless, it is thriving. The hospitals like Isbitaal Madina, Banaadir and SOS are all functioning and thriving- I went to them personally. There are many schools, from Imam Shaafici to Imam Nawawi for the orphans- I went to them personally. As for business, I’m sure we all acknowledge and recognize that it is thriving. How do I know this, because I have seen with my own two eyes, have you? The Islamic courts are doing plenty of good for the area, it is for this reason that the most knowledgeable Somali scholar alive (Shariif Cabdinuur) has said that we should be supporting these courts. So have most other Somali scholars, from Cumar Faaruuq to Umal and to Mustafa Xaaji Ismaaciil. As i was in Mogadishu, i kept thinking if Somalia is like this without a government, imagine how wonderful it would be under a recognised leadership. Bottom line is, when was the last time you actually went to the capital? If you have not been, then please for the love of God don't speak about it. Some of us have had the pleasure of returning and I was very impressed, with a little bit of work it would be absolutely superb. I personally am working to buy my plot of land asap . At the end of the day brother, don’t be a hater, be joyous- I do believe it is your country (I mean you are Somali, no?). Personally, I feel a great sense of joy whenever I hear or read about the developments of every single region within Somalia, why you may ask, because they are my brothers and sisters. Whats killing Somalia is your mentality, this mentality of supporting the interests of ones tribe over the collective somali interest, and worse still trying to demean other Somalis in the process. Ambassador, Yes and i suppose you have been to the capital? The government building and infactructure which is the responsibililty of the government was destroyed and remains as such. All other private places are built.

JZK sophist, very much appreciated.

Ma galmadii baa hadana dhaqan loo sameeyay, haye hada wax kalena waan sugeynaa. It is for this reason that diin is wrongly translated as religion, rather it should be way of life. Islam is our way of life, hence it dictates all our actions including this one. Brother you should sit back and admire the wonders of Islam, nothing was left out

^^^ Cakaara was one of the oldest and most famous Maqaaxi in downtown Hargeisa. Yeah, it was named after a small village in Mudug.

You scored a 72% on the "How Somalian are you?" Quizie! 1261 people had a score lower than yours 355 people had a score higher than yours 82 people had a score the same as yours Very proud i am!